FM25 learners over 19

Home Forums Data issues FM25 learners over 19

This topic contains 4 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  steveh 2 months, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts

  • awj
    Participant

    Hi All,

    Not sure if I am losing my mind, but we seem to have a number of learners populating in the 16-19 summary of funding by student report who are over 19, not EHCP, start date is in this year and they qualify for funding. (also no errors in the rule violations, as expected when in the funding report). Is anyone else experiencing this, perhaps aware of an issue? Or, alternatively, have I forgotten the fundamentals and we are at fault here?

    Thanks

     
    #414810

    jessicar
    Participant

    My view is you are at fault as 19 year old with a 19/20 start date should be FM35 and can only be fully funded if they do not have a full level 3 qual – its an issue they look for at audit in your DSATs to try and catch you out.

    From memory, think its not a rule violation due to A Levels ie you could start AS at 18, A level at 19, but would still be FM25 funded due to it being an A Level 2 year programme, even though the dates seem to contradict this.

     
    #414812

    awj
    Participant

    Thanks, we have run DSAT and the learners I identified were not highlighted by any report that would suggest these might be an issue. It seems odd to me that some of the learners in question are age 24 and that neither the hub, FIS or DSAT have highlighted a potential issue when these are the tools provided to us for such purposes and they are capable of much more complex validations than this.

     
    #414820

    jessicar
    Participant

    They are not actually listed as an issue in a DSAT report from memory, but auditors use one of the listing reports to highlight students in this scenario – its a trick they have up their sleeve that some maybe not all may use.

    Agree – not always easy to find. Suppose you just have to rely on the 16-19 summary report and your own internal checks.

     
    #414836

    steveh
    Participant

    Yes, it’s a funny one this.

    It can’t be an error for assorted reasons (mainly listed above), but I don’t see why it isn’t a warning…

     
    #414840
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.